Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Ramsukh And Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 20 Others – Respondent
Writ C.No. 619 of 2020
Decided on : 09-01-2020
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – Section 24 –Petitioner instituted proceeding under Section 24 of The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before Sub-Divisional Officer, which was registered as Case –Dispute pertains to demarcation of boundaries of disputed plots –Petitioner is aggrieved by failure of statutory authority to decide aforesaid proceeding, more than 10 years after institution of case –Issuance of writ in nature of mandamus directing trial court/Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom matter is pending, to decide case within stipulated period of time – Held, No list can remain pending indefinitely before court of law – Indefinite pendency of list goes to root of administration of justice – Such delay is not permitted by law and cannot be countenanced by court –Writ in nature of mandamus is issued commanding respondent trial court/Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom Case is pending to execute directions – Respondent shall decide Case of hearing to all parties to proceedings within period of six months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order – Shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to parties – Writ petition disposed of. (Paras 37 to 39)
Facts of Case:
Petitioner instituted proceeding under Section 24 of The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before Sub-Divisional Officer, which was registered as Case –Dispute pertains to demarcation of boundaries of disputed plots –Petitioner is aggrieved by failure of statutory authority to decide aforesaid proceeding, more than 10 years after institution of case –Issuance of writ in nature of mandamus directing trial court/Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom matter is pending, to decide case within stipulated period of time.
Findings of Court:
No list can remain pending indefinitely before court of law – Indefinite pendency of list goes to root of administration of justice – Such delay is not permitted by law and cannot be countenanced by court –Writ in nature of mandamus is issued commanding respondent trial court/Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom Case is pending to execute directions – Respondent shall decide Case of hearing to all parties to proceedings within period of six months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order – Shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to parties.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The petitioner instituted a proceeding under Section 24 of The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulpur, District Allahabad in the year 2009 which was registered as Case no. 269 of 2009-10 (Ram Sukh Vs Gram Sabha and others). The dispute pertains to demarcation of the boundaries of the disputed plots.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of the statutory authority to decide the aforesaid proceeding, more than 10 years after institution of the case.
3. The only prayer made by Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned trial court/Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulpur, District Allahabad before whom the matter is pending, to decide the case within a stipulated period of time.
4. Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners calls attention to the order-sheet to contend that the final decision in the matter is being inordinately delayed for no good reasons or valid basis in law. He also relies on Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 to contend that the learned trial court is under an obligation of law to conclude the proceedings under the aforesaid section within a period of three months as far as possible. The learned trial court has flouted its statutory mandate, by failing to perform its statutory duty.
5. Heard Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
6. A perusal of the order-sheet discloses that the suit instituted in the year 2009 came up for hearing for the first time on 03.11.2010 for the first time. The learned trial court/Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulpur, District Allahabad issued notices to the defendants in the suit on 03.11.2010. Thereafter the suit saw the light of day on 21.1.2011 wherein the matter was fixed for 29.01.2011 by providing a “general date”. Similar cryptic one line orders fixing various dates for hearing were passed on 21.01.2011, 29.01.2011, 28.02.2011, 08.03.2011, 16.03.2011, 31.03.2011, 04.04.2011, 12/13.04.2011. Such orders were also passed on 12.05.2011, 23.05.2011, 08.06.2011, 22.10.2016. No order is in the record of the order-sheet from 08.06.2011 till 22.10.2016.
7. On 22.10.2016 matter was posted for 12.01.2017. The case was adjourned on 12.01.2017 as the Presiding Officer was unavailable. Similarly the case was adjourned on 18.12.2017, 26.04.2017 and on 26.04.2017, due to non availability of the Presiding Officer for various reasons. On 27.06.2017 once again a general order fixing the matter on 27.07.2017 was passed. The order-sheet then reflects that the matter could not be heard on 29.08.2017, 08.11.2017, 20.12.2017, 15.03.2018, 26.03.2018, 25.04.2018, 04.06.2018 because the Presiding Officer was not available due to his engagement in election related duties, administrative work and other meetings.
8. The matter was not heard on a number of days due to strike of counsels. The dates which record absence of counsels due to lawyers' strikes were 25.04.2011, 14.06.2017, 8.08.2017, 29.08.2017, 05.04.2018, 28.04.2018, 10.05.2018, 22.05.2018, 25.06.2018, 24.07.2018, 13.08.2018, 28.12.2018, 08.03.2019, 14.06.2019, 16.08.2019. The defendants appeared before the trial court on 27.07.2017, when time was granted for filing their pleadings/responses.
9. It is evident from the order-sheet that for the past 11 years no effective hearing has taken place in the matter except on one occasion when the defendants were granted time to file their response.
10. The order-sheet has already been extracted almost fully in the preceding part of the judgment. A perusal thereof shows that dates of hearing have been fixed initially as a matter of course. The orders are cryptic and demonstrate that the proceeding is being adjourned for no reasons at all. The second categories of dates are when the matter was not be heard due to no ava
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
